"5heaps"since some things called 'buddha' are just emanations of a buddha or even qualities of buddha(s), just finding a place which says that one buddha is another is not evidence, nor does saying that all buddhas are one from the pov of their dharmakaya count as evidence that they are not multiple streams/multiple persons

um yes it does.if Vairocana Buddha says he is Shakyamnui and Shakyamuni says he is Vairocana Buddha that seals the deal.being the same Buddha is the very diffinition of Singular(same one Buddha with different names hence Singular)

"5heaps"if you wanted to prove that buddhas are singular you'd have to disprove the many sutras which talk about different people reaching buddhahood and nirvana,

the Buddhist Sutras teach there is No-Self that reaches enlightenement,so it is incorrect to think that your "self" reaches and attains Buddhahood.your view is that of one that thinks his "self" can be purified and that his "self" will become Enlightenened.you are simply voiding the No-Self self teachings and positing upon Buddhas seperate individual Selves.

"5heaps"different buddhas residing in different places performing different activities, etc. youd also have to explain how persons strive for enlightenment individually and yet are all singular.

that easy to explain all person have seperate individual selves that seek for enlightenement in the end they realise there is No-Self,being No-Self there is no individual selves that attain or realise Enlightenement(there is No worldy Self in Enlightenement) hence there is no individual self that attains enlightenement and no Buddhas with individual personality/selves that makes them seperate.......and unique individuals.(again you are trying to say the person(self) becomes enlightened,you are making enlightenement "YOURS" "I" and "mine" hence you are voiding the No-Self teachings and positing our individual selves as being purified and Enlightenend your trying to keep 5heaps(self)

as far as the Buddhas resisiding in different places,that is also easy to explain all Buddhas are manifestations of the same Mind Only,one mind different BodiesEXAMPLE:

BRAHMA-NET SUTRA

Now, I, Vairocana Buddha Am sitting atop a lotus pedestal; On a thousand flowers surrounding me Are a thousand Sakyamuni Buddhas. Each flower supports a hundred million worlds; In each world a Sakyamuni Buddha appears. All are seated beneath a Bodhi-tree, All simultaneously attain Buddhahood. All these innumerable Buddhas Have Vairocana as their original body. These countless Sakyamuni Buddhas All bring followers along -- as numerous as motes of dust. They all proceed to my lotus pedestal To listen to the Buddha's precepts. I now preach the Dharma, this exquisite nectar. Afterward, the countless Buddhas return to their respective worlds And, under a Bodhi-tree, proclaim these major and minor precepts Of Vairocana, the Original Buddha. The precepts are like the radiant sun and moon, Like a shining necklace of gems, Bodhisattvas as numerous as motes of dust Uphold them and attain Buddhahood. These precepts are recited by Vairocana, These precepts I recite as well. You novice Bodhisattvas Should reverently accept and uphold them. And once you have done so,Transmit and teach them to sentient beings.

the individual selves(5heaps/SOB/john/mark) are not the Buddha with NO-Self we cease and the Buddha Manifests in our places

"5heaps"the idea is that its not possible to do so without positing an essence independent of the aggregates which marks the aggregates as the person and encompasses all aggregates. its much simpler to have this generality vs instance debate regarding cows or pens then it is buddhas, since nonbuddhists posit essences for objects in general not just persons

YES this is exactly what i am trying to say.the 5 aggregates are born,originate and are produced in Ingnorance(look up the 12 links of dependent origination)and as you know the Buddha doesnt have the 3 poisons(greed,anger,IGNORANCE)so Enlightenement is seperate from the 5 aggregates which come from Ignorance.if Enlightenemnnt was or is dependent on the 5 Skandhas/Aggregates then this would mean enlightenement is originated in ingorance.

But as you say what do the sutras say on the subject?

Mahaparinirvana sutra Chapter 7 On the 4 aspects"Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days. It is the same with Emancipation.It does away with the 5 Skandhas.Abandoning the 5 Skandhas is true emancipation.True Emancipation is the Tathagata(Buddha)

Mahaparinirvana sutra Chapter 7 On the 4 aspects"Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days. It is the same with Emancipation.It does away with the 5 Skandhas.Abandoning the 5 Skandhas is true emancipation.True Emancipation is the Tathagata(Buddha)

This has already been done to death in this thread. Let's not do it here again.

Mahaparinirvana sutra Chapter 7 On the 4 aspects"Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days. It is the same with Emancipation.It does away with the 5 Skandhas.Abandoning the 5 Skandhas is true emancipation.True Emancipation is the Tathagata(Buddha)

This has already been done to death in this thread. Let's not do it here again.

it came up along with the topic of Singularity/monism

(he stated that for singularity to be possible it would also need to have an "essence" outside of the 5 skandhas to work ect...)unfortunately while discussing one topic to validate said topic,other topics in relation ends up getting mentioned,(for singularity to be possible anouther topic most first be validated).

"5heaps"since some things called 'buddha' are just emanations of a buddha or even qualities of buddha(s), just finding a place which says that one buddha is another is not evidence, nor does saying that all buddhas are one from the pov of their dharmakaya count as evidence that they are not multiple streams/multiple persons

um yes it does.if Vairocana Buddha says he is Shakyamnui and Shakyamuni says he is Vairocana Buddha that seals the deal.being the same Buddha is the very diffinition of Singular(same one Buddha with different names hence Singular)

like i said, things called buddha can be emanations or qualities of other buddha(s). theres no point ignoring this. in this case "Vairocana (also Vairochana or Mahāvairocana) is a celestial buddha who is often interpreted, in texts like the Flower Garland Sutra, as the Bliss Body of the historical Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama)."

the Buddhist Sutras teach there is No-Self that reaches enlightenement,so it is incorrect to think that your "self" reaches and attains Buddhahood.your view is that of one that thinks his "self" can be purified and that his "self" will become Enlightenened.you are simply voiding the No-Self self teachings and positing upon Buddhas seperate individual Selves.

now you are just completely misunderstanding what buddhadharma is. we dont reject persons, we reject persons which exist in impossible ways ie. inherently, substantially, independent of their parts, etc.

and as you know the Buddha doesnt have the 3 poisons(greed,anger,IGNORANCE)so Enlightenement is seperate from the 5 aggregates which come from Ignorance.if Enlightenemnnt was or is dependent on the 5 Skandhas/Aggregates then this would mean enlightenement is originated in ingorance.

i dont disagree that enlightenment is different than the 5 heaps of a suffering person. this doesnt mean that enlightenment is independent of its basis (its parts), it just means that the 5 heaps of a suffering person are not its basis

5heaps wrote:i dont disagree that enlightenment is different than the 5 heaps of a suffering person. this doesnt mean that enlightenment is independent of its basis (its parts), it just means that the 5 heaps of a suffering person are not its basis

Hmmmmmmm...

Because the one manifestation (ie the dharmakaya) encompasses everything, there are no things which are augmented. Because the destination (ie nirvana) cannot be reached, the dimension of Reality knows no loss. As things dwell in enjoyment (rol) there is no various teahings about the features of disciplining, and the origin of the various forms of the three manifestations are taught as the essence of the three vehicles. This makes the followers (of the vehicles) of causation content.

5heaps wrote:i dont disagree that enlightenment is different than the 5 heaps of a suffering person. this doesnt mean that enlightenment is independent of its basis (its parts), it just means that the 5 heaps of a suffering person are not its basis

Hmmmmmmm...

Because the one manifestation (ie the dharmakaya) encompasses everything, there are no things which are augmented. Because the destination (ie nirvana) cannot be reached, the dimension of Reality knows no loss. As things dwell in enjoyment (rol) there is no various teahings about the features of disciplining, and the origin of the various forms of the three manifestations are taught as the essence of the three vehicles. This makes the followers (of the vehicles) of causation content.

we can at least agree that theyre different in the sense that one (the 5 heaps) is false and the other (enligthenment) is not

yep in shentong they are relative truths and are just false conceptualizations. only ultimate truths are real, therefore the 2 are different at least from this point of view

But isn't this the point - Son of Buddha wants to argue that all Buddha's are essentially the same or something like that. Now, Dol po pa is adamant that the two truths be ontologically separated, and not reduced to an epistemological or perspectival distinction. He is directly opposed to other view such as the Sakya position of the indivisibility of samsara and nirvaṇa.

What this means is arguments based on the relative to describe the ultimate are not going to help too much. For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate. For example Dolpopa himself turns to say, the Ratnagotravibhāga which says, “Since the uncreated clear light inseparably pervades [all], surpassing the particles of sand of the River Ganges, it is endowed with all qualities of the Buddha”⁠ and so forth. Granted this does not do the work Son of Buddha wants it to but I wonder how else the question is answered in this shentong frame work other than reaching for scriptural authority describing the ultimate.

yep in shentong they are relative truths and are just false conceptualizations. only ultimate truths are real, therefore the 2 are different at least from this point of view

But isn't this the point - Son of Buddha wants to argue that all Buddha's are essentially the same or something like that. Now, Dol po pa is adamant that the two truths be ontologically separated, and not reduced to an epistemological or perspectival distinction. He is directly opposed to other view such as the Sakya position of the indivisibility of samsara and nirvaṇa.

What this means is arguments based on the relative to describe the ultimate are not going to help too much. For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate. For example Dolpopa himself turns to say, the Ratnagotravibhāga which says, “Since the uncreated clear light inseparably pervades [all], surpassing the particles of sand of the River Ganges, it is endowed with all qualities of the Buddha”⁠ and so forth. Granted this does not do the work Son of Buddha wants it to but I wonder how else the question is answered in this shentong frame work other than reaching for scriptural authority describing the ultimate.

Son of Buddha is just reading the "Brahma Net Sutra" too literally. Mahavairocana represents the dharmakaya, hence all buddha's share the same realization. Imputations of 'Oneness' and 'Manyness' are both extremes, which do not exist for buddha's (the relative and ultimate truths are teachings for deluded sentient beings.) This is addressed in Madhyamaka.

Many meditators know how to meditate,But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].- Je Gyare

Lotus_Bitch wrote:Son of Buddha is just reading the "Brahma Net Sutra" too literally. Mahavairocana represents the dharmakaya, hence all buddha's share the same realization. Imputations of 'Oneness' and 'Manyness' are both extremes, which do not exist for buddha's (the relative and ultimate truths are teachings for deluded sentient beings.) This is addressed in Madhyamaka.

That may be addressed in Madhyamaka but Dolpopa says more than this. He actually attempts to negate the position of those who hold buddha nature to be merely the freedom from conceptual elaborations (chos nyid spros bral tsam).

Further, he negates a nihilistic emptiness (chad stong), and also those who contend that it is the mere awareness and clarity of the present state of mind (da lta’i sems rig cing gsal tsam), those who maintain it to be identical with the universal ground consciousness (ālayavijñāna, kun gzhi rnam shes), and finally those who assert it to be the mere seed of enlightenment (sangs rgyas kyi sa bon tsam) that exists in the universal ground consciousness, but that cannot be established as either conditioned or unconditioned, stained or unstained.⁠

Now, if this thread is about a correct interpretation of the "Brahma Net Sutra" or something along those lines then please ignore my comments - I should probably have read the whole thread before posting!

5heaps wrote:yep in shentong they are relative truths and are just false conceptualizations. only ultimate truths are real, therefore the 2 are different at least from this point of view

False truths, ultimately real?

If Nirvana is seperate from samsara then it is unattainable since we are currently samasaric beings. If our true nature is our Buddha nature then we don't need to do anything since we are already enlightened. So are we already enlightened samsaric beings or deluded Buddhas?

I know, I know, infinite and boundless Buddha Nature is obscured by impermanent and limited ignorance... the elephant is hidden behind the mouse and other such nonsense...

Lotus_Bitch wrote:Son of Buddha is just reading the "Brahma Net Sutra" too literally. Mahavairocana represents the dharmakaya, hence all buddha's share the same realization. Imputations of 'Oneness' and 'Manyness' are both extremes, which do not exist for buddha's (the relative and ultimate truths are teachings for deluded sentient beings.) This is addressed in Madhyamaka.

As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality.

In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.

Many meditators know how to meditate,But only a few know how to dismantle [mental clinging].- Je Gyare

Mahaparinirvana sutra Chapter 7 On the 4 aspects"Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days. It is the same with Emancipation.It does away with the 5 Skandhas.Abandoning the 5 Skandhas is true emancipation.True Emancipation is the Tathagata(Buddha)

This has already been done to death in this thread. Let's not do it here again.

It hasn't been done to death - that thread's only 36 pages long. On the Internet I don't think that would even qualify as mostly dead. I'd give you "working up a sweat" - tops.

Lotus_Bitch wrote:Son of Buddha is just reading the "Brahma Net Sutra" too literally. Mahavairocana represents the dharmakaya, hence all buddha's share the same realization. Imputations of 'Oneness' and 'Manyness' are both extremes, which do not exist for buddha's (the relative and ultimate truths are teachings for deluded sentient beings.) This is addressed in Madhyamaka.

As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality.

In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.

Okay, but the second para is not an explanation of the first. Maybe I read you wrong. Anyways, Dolpopa would certainly disagree with the second para particularly the first sentence. I also think he could be read even more radically with regards to the first para but I don't know too much about his view so will leave it there. Also thanks for the link to the other thread looks interesting.

Tom wrote:For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate.

they carry all the weight they need to because relative truths are nevertheless valid [for an obscurer] and, more importantly, do not exist by way of essential natures; they are imputedly knowable. monism wants to say that ultimate truth is independent of the person in some self-sufficiently knowable way. thats all we need to know in order to accept that they [shentong] dismiss any conception of a self to things and persons, whereas monism and nonbuddhists do not

to this gelug prasangika in general says that there is obviously a level of inherent existence being asserted if the shentong explanations are to be taken as the final position, but compared to nonbuddhists and even sautrantika, there is no comparison ie. this system is higher than those

gregkavarnos wrote:If our true nature is our Buddha nature then we don't need to do anything since we are already enlightened. So are we already enlightened samsaric beings or deluded Buddhas?

the answer probably depends on a very good understanding of what it means to be an imputed object. the trouble is we see imputed objects as though they substantially exist. thats when dharmakirti etc walk into the room to teach apoha..sautrantika 101, thats what all these higher systems depend on